Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Kenwood TS590SG, will it be any better?  (Read 109917 times)
KU3X
Member

Posts: 612




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2014, 09:11:56 AM »

The 590SG needs a sub receive. I don't mind paying more for that feature, I just don't want to pay $8000 for the 990 that has one. I don't need all of the features
the 990 offers.

Barry
www.ku3x.net
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2014, 09:24:56 AM »

The 590SG needs a sub receive. I don't mind paying more for that feature, I just don't want to pay $8000 for the 990 that has one. I don't need all of the features
the 990 offers.

Barry
www.ku3x.net

It would no longer be a 590. Very few actually NEED a sub receiver, it is move of a eye candy/ego thing.
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2971




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2014, 09:27:45 AM »

The 590SG needs a sub receive. I don't mind paying more for that feature, I just don't want to pay $8000 for the 990 that has one. I don't need all of the features
the 990 offers.

Barry
www.ku3x.net

No problem. I have a QSR1 working with my TS-590s. It does double duty as a panafall. No mods to the TS-590s needed. All info for doing it with pictures is here:
https://sdrzone.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86:zone-qs1r-review&catid=20:mosaics&Itemid=572

This is a VERY powerful combination. It will work with any radio, not just a Ts-590s.

Very few actually NEED a sub receiver, it is move of a eye candy/ego thing.

This is an extremely clueless comment. ANYONE who works DX split pileups knows the huge advantage a second receiver affords.  Wink A panafall on a second RX is even a bigger advantage.

W8JX: You post some pretty odd posts but this HAS to be the most clueless "know it all" comment I have seen from you.


Stan K9IUQ
« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 09:43:18 AM by K9IUQ » Logged
AG6WT
Member

Posts: 510




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2014, 09:58:54 AM »

The 590SG needs a sub receive. I don't mind paying more for that feature, I just don't want to pay $8000 for the 990 that has one. I don't need all of the features
the 990 offers.

Barry
www.ku3x.net

It would no longer be a 590. Very few actually NEED a sub receiver, it is move of a eye candy/ego thing.

Casual operators don't need a sub-receiver but serious DX'ers do.  However, since the TS-590s is competitive with the K3 and the K3 does have a sub-receiver as an option, Kenwood would have helped themselves if they had put a sub-receiver in a TS-590SG.  IF out for a pan-adapter would have been another feature that they could have included to make the TS-590SG even more competitive with the K3.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2014, 10:43:20 AM »


Very few actually NEED a sub receiver, it is move of a eye candy/ego thing.

This is an extremely clueless comment. ANYONE who works DX split pileups knows the huge advantage a second receiver affords.  Wink A panafall on a second RX is even a bigger advantage.

W8JX: You post some pretty odd posts but this HAS to be the most clueless "know it all" comment I have seen from you.


Stan K9IUQ

Usual Stan BS. It's amazing how anyone worked any DX for many may years without it. It is more a got to have ego thing than really need it. OEM have convinced you that you need it though. If you are not lazy or radio inept you can handle it with dual VFO's just fine 99.9% of time. Now if you have a Icom or a Yeasu that requires you to dive into menu to fully exploit dual VFO's then you have a problem. You do not need dual receiver but do need a more user friendly rig.  
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
PA1ZP
Member

Posts: 688




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2014, 10:50:56 AM »

Hi

Ofcourse , it was needed that there came a new TS590SG.
Sales of the TS590 were dropping rapidly.

I hope they made a lot of inprovements.
Because the TS590 had enough troubles that could use inprovement.

Things like the ringing of the CW filters in narrow settings.
Even the cheapo audio DSP of the FT857D makes that the narrow CW filters doesn't not ring.
Things like the nasty and nervous behaving of the RX in static conditions.
Things like the SSB TX being just a bit over QRP power levels, to hide the lousy ALC design.
Improvement of the noise-blanker, specialy NB2 could use improvement.

I have more then enough bells and whistles and RX performance in close range is more then good enough for me.
Colour of knobs and display, I do not care at all.
Already half the amount of knobs are unused.
Just get rid of the anoying things the TS590S has would be more then enough.  

Just make sure that the TS590SG is finished when sold, so I do not have to send it back to get it finished.

The problems in the first TS590 have been enough to say, no more Kenwood for me again.

73 Jos
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2971




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2014, 11:11:46 AM »

Usual Stan BS. It's amazing how anyone worked any DX for many may years without it.

John, I knew you were not a Smart DXer when I first saw your rusty no radial vertical on your QRZ.com lookup page. No Smart Dxer would ever use a ground mounted vertical without radials. The keyword of course is Smart.

I just LOVE to have clueless Dxers like yourself in a pileup. I get in there with my second RX and Panafall and Boom- work the DX in a few minutes. You on the other hand - call and call and call and call fruitlessly while the other Smart hams work the DX.

With a panafall you can always tell who are the clueless hams without a second RX. They are the jerks that are calling at the SAME time as the DX station.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I have had radios with just dual VFo's and radios with Dual Rx's and Icoms with Dual Watch. The Dual RX and Dual Watch radios make it much easier, time saving and more efficient to break a split pileup.

To say a second RX is eye candy and an ego trip for (Smart) Dxers is truly clueless....

Stan K9IUQ
« Last Edit: October 06, 2014, 11:27:45 AM by K9IUQ » Logged
HB9PJT
Member

Posts: 413


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2014, 05:03:47 PM »

The TS-590SG does not have an IF out but as a better solution it has an ANT Output for an RX. So you can connect a second RX. When you take a SDR then you have a much better spectrum display then with an IF out. And for all who think a second RX is necessary the TS-590SG together with a SDR is the ultimative system. Better than only have a second RX as other rigs di have!

73, Peter - HB9PJT


Casual operators don't need a sub-receiver but serious DX'ers do.  However, since the TS-590s is competitive with the K3 and the K3 does have a sub-receiver as an option, Kenwood would have helped themselves if they had put a sub-receiver in a TS-590SG.  IF out for a pan-adapter would have been another feature that they could have included to make the TS-590SG even more competitive with the K3.
Logged
NZ4ZN
Member

Posts: 185




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2014, 06:35:27 PM »

The TS-590SG does not have an IF out but as a better solution it has an ANT Output for an RX.
Maybe I misunderstand your post, but the "RX ANT" panel connector on the back of the TS590 is an INPUT, and on page 9, the manual states it is for a receive antenna. Do you suggest connecting an auxiliary receiver output to this RX ANT connector?
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1621




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2014, 01:18:30 AM »

If the TS590SG had a IF OUT, calibrated S-meter and a super clean transmitter it would have represented the ultimate value as a workhorse radio. In fact if the TS590SG was remodeled like the old TS850S with the above Kenwood could possibly  make huge inroads into the contest market serious dx'er radio market.

Its hard finding a high performance radio that represents good value and performance at the moment without mortgaging your house. The old TS930, TS940S, TS850S, FT1000MP, and FT1000D were the contest workhorse radios of past. Unfortunately the small  mindset ergonomics of the TS590S does not suite the mindset of most contesters view of what good ergonomics represent.

Kenwood should move into the middle size radio market that it used to be in and did so well with. TS590SG built into a box the size of the TS590S or TS850S with a panadapter would be a huge hit.

All the current micro to mini radio releases  while selling  well because they are cheap are not the kind of radios that most hams want to have on their desks at home. The Icom 756 series of radios are more on the mark. The popularity of this radio size and its success speaks for itself.

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 13268




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2014, 04:07:22 AM »

I knew you were not a Smart DXer when I first saw your rusty no radial vertical on your QRZ.com lookup page. No Smart Dxer would ever use a ground mounted vertical without radials. The keyword of course is Smart.

Because you think you are smart, you know in your limited vision that my antenna should not work, the problem is it does work really well on 40 m radials or not on my ground on a hill well away from house. No it is no a top performer on 20 and above but I rarely up there. I have no trouble working into Europe or down under on 40 and I have worked Europe on 80 too. You have trouble comprehending that is does work well here. You do not need a stacked beam array, 3kw and lmr 400 and dual receiver to work DX but experts like you think otherwise. BTW i posted the picture because many hams I worked on 40 were impressed how well it worked and I wanted to show it was real.

See Stan you are a legend in your own mind and lack understanding to get outside your small fishbowl....
Logged

--------------------------------------
Ham since 1969....  Old School 20wpm REAL Extra Class..
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2971




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2014, 04:33:25 AM »

No it is no a top performer

Well, that part is right. Yes John, we have all read about your Myth Busting rusty no radial Vertical antenna before. It defies all antenna laws and everyone that does not believe your BS is in a fishbowl.

Radials, beams, 2nd RX's and good antenna practices are for those lacking  understanding and need eye candy and have big eqos.

Have I covered all your views accurately?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 2971




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2014, 04:41:01 AM »

the "RX ANT" panel connector on the back of the TS590 is an INPUT, and on page 9, the manual states it is for a receive antenna.

You are correct, it is for a RX antenna. If you use this RX ant input make sure you have antenna protection so that when you xmit the RX antenna does not shoot RF back into the radio.. Especially if you run an Amp.

Many hams have learned this lesson the hard way.

Some of the information I have read about the new TS-590sg suggests it may have a RX OUTPUT also.


Stan K9IUQ
« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 04:53:33 AM by K9IUQ » Logged
SWL2002
Member

Posts: 895




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2014, 04:52:33 AM »

I knew you were not a Smart DXer when I first saw your rusty no radial vertical on your QRZ.com lookup page. No Smart Dxer would ever use a ground mounted vertical without radials. The keyword of course is Smart.

Because you think you are smart, you know in your limited vision that my antenna should not work, the problem is it does work really well on 40 m radials or not on my ground on a hill well away from house. No it is no a top performer on 20 and above but I rarely up there. I have no trouble working into Europe or down under on 40 and I have worked Europe on 80 too. You have trouble comprehending that is does work well here. You do not need a stacked beam array, 3kw and lmr 400 and dual receiver to work DX but experts like you think otherwise. BTW i posted the picture because many hams I worked on 40 were impressed how well it worked and I wanted to show it was real.

See Stan you are a legend in your own mind and lack understanding to get outside your small fishbowl....

Now come on... What BS... I have worked DX on 20m CW running 2 kW into an oil filled dummy load as a transmit antenna sitting on the upper floor of my house after trying for a week.  I figure I had between 100-200 mW ERP.  Anyone with half a brain knows that when propagation is good, you can work the world on a wet noodle.  Just because you made some contacts with your dummy load of an antenna does not mean that it is a good antenna or even a fair antenna.  Don't try to pass it off as something that defies conventional antenna wisdom.

Even a blind hog finds a truffle every once in a while. Just like you and your DX contacts... Cheesy

« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 05:29:57 AM by SWL2002 » Logged
SWL2002
Member

Posts: 895




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2014, 04:58:19 AM »

The TS-590SG does not have an IF out but as a better solution it has an ANT Output for an RX.
Maybe I misunderstand your post, but the "RX ANT" panel connector on the back of the TS590 is an INPUT, and on page 9, the manual states it is for a receive antenna. Do you suggest connecting an auxiliary receiver output to this RX ANT connector?

The RX antenna connector on the TS-590 is for a receive antenna input.

There is a mod on the internet that describes adding an antenna output to the TS-590.  This requires internal modification, so it is not for the faint of heart:

http://www.crystalradio.us/projects/ts-590s-rx-mod.htm
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!